A wealthy Bonds trader in the UK recently claimed that her now ex-husband “won the lottery” with a generous divorce settlement awarded by the Court. She says that divorce law is outdated, unfair and needs to be modernised.

 

Julie and Robin Sharp divorced in 2014. They had been in a relationship for 6years and did not have any children.

During their marriage, Mrs Sharp accumulated a multimillion pound in her role as a trader fortune buying and selling energy stocks and bonds. In addition to her base salary, she also earned large bonuses. Mr Sharp was employed as an IT consultant but relinquished his career during the marriage to look after the couple’s two homes.

 

Divorce Proceedings and Awarded Settlement

In 2015, the estranged couple commenced divorce proceedings. The judge awarded Mr Sharp £2,737,000 (AUD$4,600,000), exactly half the matrimonial assets, in a ‘clean break’ settlement.

A clean break settlement means that neither party has any further financial claim against the other so there are no ongoing spousal maintenance payments from the higher earning spouse. This is usually the preferred outcome in Australian divorces in cases where there are adequate assets to allow it to happen.

 

Wife Appeals Ruling

Mrs Sharp, who now prefers her maiden name, successfully appealed the judgement. Her argument was based on the premise that the couple had never merged their finances during their relationship and she alone had generated the overwhelming majority of the matrimonial assets.

Lord Justice MacFarlane hearing the matter accepted her argument, saying:

“…where both spouses have largely been in full-time employment and where only some of their finances have been pooled… fairness may require a reduction from a full 50% share or the exclusion of some property from the 50% calculation.”

The amount awarded to Mr Sharp was reduced, to one of the couple’s two homes valued at £1.1 million and a lump sum payment of £900,000.

 

Is Divorce Law Outdated and Unfair?

Ms Arnold commented to the press after the appeal was finalising saying she thought even the revised award was:

“Still a lottery win, just for being with someone”, adding that “if we’d stayed married, we would still have kept our finances separate and he would not have had his £2 million.”

 

Ms Arnold said she thought divorce law needs modernisation as it is not suited to current lifestyle and career patterns and in particular to couples who separate after a relatively short marriage and have no children.

She also commented on those marrying later in life saying it was common for one partner to earn more than the other or to bring significantly more assets into the marriage.

Ms Arnold insisted that in such cases the current predilection of sharing assets equally was unfair. Clearly wishing to see change, she said she was “really disillusioned with the whole process” and suggested that mandatory prenuptial agreements would ensure couples properly discuss their finances before getting married.

Marriage rates have been on the decline in both the UK and Australia so perhaps Ms Arnold is correct when she says, “all of this uncertainty puts people off getting married."

Do you agree with her? Does the uncertainty deter people from getting married in the first place and are our current laws in need of revision to take into account the changes in our current living and working patterns?

Share your views in the comments section below.

Published by, Christine Weston
Founding Director and Creator of Divorce Resource